Now if someone were to go test a persistent trail, and find it to be ice, then that would at least disprove the notion that ice contrails cannot persist. And if they tested it and found it to be anything other than ice, then that would be solid evidence for the chemtrail hypothesis.

So let's see if we can figure out exactly what would be needed? What type of plane. How to decide what to sample. How to test the samples. Can we come up with a test plan, and costs, to help people decide what to spend money on?

Are there alternatives besides renting a plane? Could you use balloons, or rockets?

Are there some cheap and dirty plane options? You could use something like a Beechcraft King Air 200, which can cruise at 35,000 feet, charter for $1185 an hour. Could you just sample cabin air? Would that work in theory if there was a contrail made of powder?

Planes are made out of aluminum so i don't think cabin air would be irrefutable.

Click to expand...

It's an entirely practical suggestion, I would encourage it ! Or alternatively you could sample it on the ground before they load the stuff into the planes. The logistics for handling these products is awesome - check your local Halliburton office and just tell them that your delivery to the airport is held up by a truck breakdown and hone in on the airport they are using in your district. It has to handle jets and so that takes out the smaller airports, so focus on those with military links and a proximate contractors office - like Houston.

Thing with using cabin air from a pressurized aircraft such as a King Air is that much of the cabin air comes from the engines, and not say, through a direct vent. They pass through various filters, and are a product of the engines' compressed air. This could skew results big-time. I know the G-1 Research aircraft that are often cited as a chemtrail aircraft may be able to used for such purposes, since it was designed to test the atmosphere, but I'm not sure about the specific equipment on board to say it can be used for the specific purpose of sampling air for metallic substances. I think the plane can fly upwards to around 33,000' though, which should be sufficient.

I don't know much about capturing air samples, but quite honestly, I think using a balloon is an easier alternative to actual aircraft. I hear weather balloons can fly quite high, and all that is needed is a measuring device strapped to it. Getting the authority to launch something like that probably wouldn't be as complicated as sending a plane.

The thing with weather balloons is that you'd have a devil of a time trying to actually specifically sample a trail, and not just a random bit of air. With a plane you could explicitly fly into a contrail, and a take an in-situ sample.

Even with a plane though I imagine it would be tricky to arrange. You would need continual ATC clearance above 18,000 feet.

That is true. Technically, all that is needed from an aircraft is it's ability to climb to high altitudes and some easy access to ram air (i.e. vents) with a device that can measure that air. So long as the aircraft isn't modified in any way that would invalidate whatever certificate of airworthiness it is under, it shouldn't be much of an expensive task. It's mostly getting the authority to zip around in controlled airspace that is the biggest hurdle I think, for I'm sure they will certainly ask why the heck you are doing it .

The thing with weather balloons is that you'd have a devil of a time trying to actually specifically sample a trail, and not just a random bit of air. With a plane you could explicitly fly into a contrail, and a take an in-situ sample.

Even with a plane though I imagine it would be tricky to arrange. You would need continual ATC clearance above 18,000 feet.

Click to expand...

As all-pervasive as this stuff is supposed to be, you'd think the entire atmosphere would be chock-full of aluminum and barium.

The thing with weather balloons is that you'd have a devil of a time trying to actually specifically sample a trail, and not just a random bit of air. With a plane you could explicitly fly into a contrail, and a take an in-situ sample.

Even with a plane though I imagine it would be tricky to arrange. You would need continual ATC clearance above 18,000 feet.

Click to expand...

If we knew the wind direction and the altitude of the contrail technically it wouldn't be difficult to calculate. Especially if it is on a day with a lot of air traffic and a lot of persistent contrails. I can see this actually working. Attach a GoPro camera to it so you can even see the balloon going through a trail. I was thinking about contacting my local meteorologist and get their suggestions. Not sure what the FAA regulations are and I'm sure i would need to get clearance. The main thing I need to know is what test equipment do I need? Not sure how that would work. It's worth looking into at least. Would make a great YouTube video and all the chemtrailers would come out of the woodwork just to call me a shill! YAY, LOL!

If we knew the wind direction and the altitude of the contrail technically it wouldn't be difficult to calculate. Especially if it is on a day with a lot of air traffic and a lot of persistent contrails. I can see this actually working. Attach a GoPro camera to it so you can even see the balloon going through a trail. I was thinking about contacting my local meteorologist and get their suggestions. Not sure what the FAA regulations are and I'm sure i would need to get clearance. The main thing I need to know is what test equipment do I need? Not sure how that would work. It's worth looking into at least. Would make a great YouTube video and all the chemtrailers would come out of the woodwork just to call me a shill! YAY, LOL!

Click to expand...

The problem is the wind direction varies a lot based on altitude and there no way of knowing what it is exactly short of flying through it. You can get a rough approximation, but it's not going to be good enough to hit a contrail.

Predicting your balloon’s flight path is a requirement in the USA and the results must be provided to the FAA before launch. Fortunately, there exist many easy-to-use online calculators that can estimate your path. This also makes it easier for your team to narrow down good launch locations and launch times. For example, if the flight path passes over an airport or large body of water, you should consider changing your launch location, your balloon size/fill, or waiting a few days for a different wind profile. Ideally you want to land in open farm land. This allows for a safe and easy recovery.

Predicting your flight path is also great because you can pre-plan a chase route. It would be ideal to be close to your balloon, especially if you are sending commands up. If you are not using public ground stations that is another reason to be within close proximity to your balloon.

Finally, some prediction sites online offer real-time flight predictions. This allows a team to chase the landing site and not the balloon. How cool would a visual recovery be?! This also mitigates any signal losses below radio horizons.

The problem is the wind direction varies a lot based on altitude and there no way of knowing what it is exactly short of flying through it. You can get a rough approximation, but it's not going to be good enough to hit a contrail.

Predicting your balloon’s flight path is a requirement in the USA and the results must be provided to the FAA before launch. Fortunately, there exist many easy-to-use online calculators that can estimate your path. This also makes it easier for your team to narrow down good launch locations and launch times. For example, if the flight path passes over an airport or large body of water, you should consider changing your launch location, your balloon size/fill, or waiting a few days for a different wind profile. Ideally you want to land in open farm land. This allows for a safe and easy recovery.

Predicting your flight path is also great because you can pre-plan a chase route. It would be ideal to be close to your balloon, especially if you are sending commands up. If you are not using public ground stations that is another reason to be within close proximity to your balloon.

Finally, some prediction sites online offer real-time flight predictions. This allows a team to chase the landing site and not the balloon. How cool would a visual recovery be?! This also mitigates any signal losses below radio horizons.

Content from external source

Click to expand...

Yes I did actually think of that after I posted. I've considered Spectral analysis. This would theoretically work. Altho I can see a lot of chemmers not really grasping how that works. They need to physically see things and it be broken down to 5th grade level.

I think a rocket would be a better solution, its quicker, easier to aim than a balloon and it is possible to have some form of control on it during ascent. Of course permission would still be needed to fire a rocket through a contrail in a flight corridor and would be hard for amateurs to obtain. But if the test(s) were carried out with the support of a respected academic body such as a university or other established research group permission, under strict provisos should be impossible to get.

Of course the total intersect time between rocket and contrail is going to be far far less than a balloon and a contrail, so careful attention will have to be paid on the payload and sampling methods.

I believe the University of North Dakota still owns a Citation II fitted with air sampling equipment. If someone is really serious about testing the upper atmosphere to fly through contrails then they would be the people to contact. I have no idea how much they would charge tho.
I know they performed some research near the ITCZ when I was attending school there in the mid 90's. They flew through massive 60k thunderstorms taking air samples.

THIS is exactly correct. EVEN AT altitudes where contrails can typically form....there is possible "shear" involved, in terms of wind layers and directions and velocity (this is "partly" why you as an airline passenger experience turbulence...it isn't "always" visible to a flight crew).

Yes I did actually think of that after I posted. I've considered Spectral analysis. This would theoretically work. Altho I can see a lot of chemmers not really grasping how that works. They need to physically see things and it be broken down to 5th grade level.

Click to expand...

That would probably be the cheapest way of doing a contrail sample, I wonder if Landsat 8 scenes would show a few contrails. But I've only ever seen clouds and smoke with most of the NASA EOS data, and most of the clouds are at a much lower altitude than the contrails are. Landsat 8 has an aerosol band and that may also help since contrails are technically aerosols. But then like you said, the chemmies would just claim that something fishy was going on because they don't understand spectral analysis, or that the debunkers just purposely chose a contrail that was not a "chemtrail" for the sampling lol

That would probably be the cheapest way of doing a contrail sample, I wonder if Landsat 8 scenes would show a few contrails. But I've only ever seen clouds and smoke with most of the NASA EOS data, and most of the clouds are at a much lower altitude than the contrails are. Landsat 8 has an aerosol band and that may also help since contrails are technically aerosols. But then like you said, the chemmies would just claim that something fishy was going on because they don't understand spectral analysis, or that the debunkers just purposely chose a contrail that was not a "chemtrail" for the sampling lol

Click to expand...

This is the essence of the problem. The level of belief overcomes any proof to the contrary.

This has been done several times for research purposes. Research aircraft sampled contrails directly. Recently, German filmmaker Matthias Hancke also did it for his movie about chemtrails (he hasn't released the results so far).

This has been done several times for research purposes. Research aircraft sampled contrails directly. Recently, German filmmaker Matthias Hancke also did it for his movie about chemtrails (he hasn't released the results so far).

Click to expand...

And apparently he took samples inside a trail. So how did he go about getting clearance?

And apparently he took samples inside a trail. So how did he go about getting clearance?

Click to expand...

Probably he just joined the researchers who do atmospheric research anyway. The German DLR uses this Gulfstream G-550 HALO to sample cirrus clouds (including contrails):
The pipe at the front is what they take the air samples with.

Here is research from Michael R. Poellot who took samples from 21 different contrails using a cessna jet. It was done in 1999. He doesn't note any finding of anything abnormal that would support anything the chemtrail community is saying. It's more a study about natural cirrus clouds and man made cirrus clouds (contrails).

Abstract. In this study we present the microphysical characteristics of 21 jet contrail clouds sampled in situ and examine the possible effects of exhaust on natural cirrus and radiative effects of contrails. Microphysical samples were obtained with Particle Measuring Systems (PMS) 2D-C, 1D-C, and FSSP probes. About one half of the study contrails were generated by the sampling aircraft, a Cessna Citation, primarily at times of 3–15 min after generation; the source and age of the others is unknown. On average, the contrails contained particles of mean diameter of the order of 10 mm in concentrations exceeding 10,000 L21 . Contrails embedded in natural cirrus appeared to have little effect on the natural cloud microphysics. Anomalous diffraction theory was used to model radiative properties of sampled contrails. The contrail cirrus showed considerably more spectral variation in extinction and absorption efficiencies than natural cirrus because of the large numbers of small crystals in contrails. Embedded contrails also displayed greater emissivity and emission than natural cirrus and a greater spectral variation in transmission.

And apparently he took samples inside a trail. So how did he go about getting clearance?

Click to expand...

Flying a plane through a trail that's more than a few minutes old should not be super complicated to arrange. It's not like they are tailgating. You could just file an initial flight plan that involved flying in a holding pattern for a couple of hours, then when you see a contrail nearby (could be several miles away), request a change to the flight plan that will take you though the trail.

For example there's nothing at all to prevent you renting a private jet and flying this pattern until you see a contrail, then heading for the contrail.http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE4BA/history/20150113/2030Z/KBFI/KHQM
The flight plan filed there was: SEA V27 HQM HQM252006 AST300020 D0+20 AST318017 HQM D2+00
Which I don't entirely follow, but SEA, HQM and AST are airports, V27 is the airway from SEA to HQM (The long line above), then they are flying between repeatedly between HQM and AST. You can file a new plan after you take off, and request various deviations and alterations.

This has been done several times for research purposes. Research aircraft sampled contrails directly. Recently, German filmmaker Matthias Hancke also did it for his movie about chemtrails (he hasn't released the results so far).

Click to expand...

I cannot wait for the results. If he is a "chemtrail" believer he won't like what he finds. If he is trying to disprove the chemtrail hoax he will be labeled as a secret disinfo agent. Which is unfortunate. Then again he could totally make up his findings. Sounds like something that should be peer reviewed if he wants it to be legit. I know that is what I would do. This info would be very useful. If his so called findings are accurate.

Here is research from Michael R. Poellot who took samples from 21 different contrails using a cessna jet. It was done in 1999. He doesn't note any finding of anything abnormal that would support anything the chemtrail community is saying. It's more a study about natural cirrus clouds and man made cirrus clouds (contrails).

Abstract. In this study we present the microphysical characteristics of 21 jet contrail clouds sampled in situ and examine the possible effects of exhaust on natural cirrus and radiative effects of contrails. Microphysical samples were obtained with Particle Measuring Systems (PMS) 2D-C, 1D-C, and FSSP probes. About one half of the study contrails were generated by the sampling aircraft, a Cessna Citation, primarily at times of 3–15 min after generation; the source and age of the others is unknown. On average, the contrails contained particles of mean diameter of the order of 10 mm in concentrations exceeding 10,000 L21 . Contrails embedded in natural cirrus appeared to have little effect on the natural cloud microphysics. Anomalous diffraction theory was used to model radiative properties of sampled contrails. The contrail cirrus showed considerably more spectral variation in extinction and absorption efficiencies than natural cirrus because of the large numbers of small crystals in contrails. Embedded contrails also displayed greater emissivity and emission than natural cirrus and a greater spectral variation in transmission.

Not quite optimal, but any healthy civilian can book a true "HALO" (High Altitude Low Opening) parachute jump at around 30,000 ft. It is a tandem jump, with an experienced instructor.

Conceivably, you may be able to request to aim your jump "through" a persistent trail, and carry/attach some air sampling equipment with you.
Problems would be....you would drop through the trail very quickly, thereby limiting a decent sample...(or easily miss it entirely).

Alternatively, these HALO jump planes obviously have an open door to jump through.....and it may be possible to convince (pay?) them to allow you to tag-along with the crew on a flight, and have them fly through a persistent trail (after their paying jumpers have jumped), on their way back to the airport. You could sample a trail at that time, through the open door.

You might be able to find a pilot that is knowledgeable of the "chemtrail idea", and is sympathetic to the idea, and willing to assist in a test like this. ??

What other planes have an unpressurized fuselage, with a door ?
.....with an appropriate altitude height to fly through a trail ?

Another problem is that just about any sample of air or water that you take anywhere is going to have some trace amount of metal in it (especially if it's sampled from an aeroplane which is basically a big aluminium tube!)

And when you consider that samples like this, which contains about 7 parts per BILLION of aluminium, and an order of magnitude less of barium and strontium, are touted as "proof of chemtrail contamination"... well, good luck!

At an average adult intake of aluminium from food of 5 mg/day and a drinking-water aluminium concentration of 0.1 mg/litre, the contribution of drinking-water to the total oral exposure to aluminium will be about 4%. The contribution of air to the total exposure is generally negligible.

Content from external source

They should be pleased. At the concentration of their water, the water is only 0.3% of their total aluminium intake.

Of course, they might have done what I did and conflate g/m3 with g/L as I have seen people thinking micrograms is the same as milligrams in another test (probably the Mt Shasta one) or they might be just worried because there is ANY aluminium in there.

Another problem is that just about any sample of air or water that you take anywhere is going to have some trace amount of metal in it (especially if it's sampled from an aeroplane which is basically a big aluminium tube!)
And when you consider that samples like this, which contains about 7 parts per BILLION of aluminium, and an order of magnitude less of barium and strontium, are touted as "proof of chemtrail contamination"... well, good luck!

The "Leifer" guy in the above link^^ comments-section spelled it out, briefly . But Harold Saive avoided any comment.
And this is a problem when (and if) any tests are taken, and presented for discussion. The results are either:

* disbelieved because the source (who is taking the tests ?)
* the test results are not understood or misinterpreted.
* various myths are used to invalidate the test results. (example, "there should not be ANY of these substances found in the air or rain")

For any trail sampling to be somewhat credible.....

*.....a well-known chemtrail believer must be present, and part of the test.
*....as well as an impartial independent scientist (or 2).
*....along with someone skeptical of chemtrails.
*....and the tests documented on video, and publicly available afterwards.

I can't access the FB link for "This Facebook group is looking for a pilot to test a chemtrail:". I may be blocked.

Flying a plane through a trail that's more than a few minutes old should not be super complicated to arrange. It's not like they are tailgating. You could just file an initial flight plan that involved flying in a holding pattern for a couple of hours, then when you see a contrail nearby (could be several miles away), request a change to the flight plan that will take you though the trail.

For example there's nothing at all to prevent you renting a private jet and flying this pattern until you see a contrail, then heading for the contrail.

The "Leifer" guy in the above link^^ comments-section spelled it out, briefly . But Harold Saive avoided any comment.

Click to expand...

Sorry to be picky but the "leifer" guy was very good in his comments apart from saying Micrograms when he meant milligrams.
Like you said though, interesting that Harold declined to comment, apart from going on about how they might be spraying different things, which seems like a get out clause. This is proof they are spraying, except it clearly isn't so maybe they still sprayed but sprayed something else we didn't test for.
and the myth of how there should be NONE of these things in the rainwater of course by another commenter.
Interesting that Claire Swinney, the originator of the post or Ngaire Small who had the tests done didn't pop by to defend their claim.

Been lurking for a while, but this thread has made me register. The most powerful way to address this is to propose a hypothesis and then devise an experiment that could disprove it. With all due respect to Mick, the OP proposes a test that might in some circumstance provide "solid evidence for the chemtrail hypothesis." No such thing. Look for clear "disproof" not proof.

Been lurking for a while, but this thread has made me register. The most powerful way to address this is to propose a hypothesis and then devise an experiment that could disprove it. With all due respect to Mick, the OP proposes a test that might in some circumstance provide "solid evidence for the chemtrail hypothesis." No such thing. Look for clear "disproof" not proof.

If I were cleverer I would suggest an experiment ...

Click to expand...

You might want to suggest a hypothesis first

If the chemtrail hypothesis is "some planes are secretly spraying chemicals disguised as contrails", then there is no experiment that can practically disprove it, as you'd have to test the contrails of all planes.

You can't disprove a hypothesis of the form "Some X are Y" where X is set that is not fully accessible. However you can prove it by finding an example of an X that is Y.

You can however disprove hypotheses of the for "All X are Y" of "No X are Y" by finding an example of an X that is not (or is) Y.

So with the chemtrail theory there are several variants, and several hypotheses. Some say that only some persistent trails have secret chemicals in them, and some say that all persistent trails have these chemicals. The former can possibly be proven (but not disproved), the latter can be disproved (but not proved).

Sure. But proving to a chemtrail theorist that a persistent contrail can be formed by ice alone has already been done (from what I have read about 196/70s books etc), so no new experiment will produce anything new.
To formulate a testable hypothesis some parameters have to be agreed, such as "what constitutes a negligible (or signficant) concentration of every potential contaminant". No point in showing there's effectively no [compound A] present when levels of some other [compound B] are present.
Maybe "At least one contrail that persisted for X minutes (where X is a predetermined time considered notable by a chemtrail authority) contained no elements at significantly higher levels than distilled water". (I don't know if that is reasonable but comparisons to any other source of water are likely to be open to criticism of chemtrail contamination).

Sure. But proving to a chemtrail theorist that a persistent contrail can be formed by ice alone has already been done (from what I have read about 196/70s books etc), so no new experiment will produce anything new.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of chemtrail believers think that persistent contrails don't exist. The fact that science and history are entirely against them is not persuasive. So if they actually went as far as sampling a trail and found only ice, it might help them focus, even if it's scientifically unnecessary.

With very few exceptions, we should not see ANYTHING behind the jets in our skies that are fitted with high bypass turbofan jet engines. High Bypass turbofan jet engines are fitted on ALL COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT and ALL MILITARY TANKERS. High bypass jet engines are nearly incapable of producing a “condensation trail” except for the most extreme conditions and even then any visible trail should not be more than a few seconds at most.

Content from external source

I think any actual implementation of such an experiment would be a waste of time though. The people who think persistent contrails do not exist have such a poor relationship with science that they would be unable to do anything useful.

The real challenge here is to get individual chemtrail promoters to actually consider the real science. Historically this has proven impossible, so the focus has been on shining a light on their misunderstandings, so that other people don't get sucked into them.

I think the whole "why don't you rent a plane and go test the trails" is a bit of a wild goose chase. I discuss it mostly as a thought experiment to get people to think about the science. If would be far better if we could ask "why do you think contrails can't persist?" and "why do you think high-bypass engines can't make contrails?"